Join the Diplomacy Now Mailing list.
Receive our monthly edition focused on conflict resolution with articles from experts directly to your inbox.
The regime of Bashar al-Assad has fallen. A spectacular and unexpected offensive of the armed opposition led by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, an Islamist group with roots in Al Qaeda, that has been deemed a terrorist organization by the United Nations, US and numerous other countries, has been met with overwhelming celebration by Syrians. But for those who have been following Syria since the outbreak of its civil war in 2011, there is cause for concern, particularly given HTS’s extremist roots. The fall of the regime does not necessarily spell a peaceful path forward for the embattled nation and could be a precursor to further conflict.
After 13-years of civil war, Syria became a flashpoint for the significant failures of international mediation. Since the beginning of the conflict, all efforts to broker peace have failed starting with the resignation of the first two United Nations envoys – the late Kofi Annan and Lakhdar Brahimi, which was followed by the marginalization of the UN who since then have failed to play any meaningful role. What lessons can be learned from the diplomatic failures of the United Nations? The global community must reflect, but also act quickly before paving a new diplomatic course.
As uncertainty encircles Syria, the recent election victory of Donald Trump in the United States has put fragile diplomatic efforts in conflicts in the Middle East, Ukraine and Africa into question. Trump, who promised to end two of the world’s most devastating conflicts – Gaza and Ukraine – immediately after taking office, has already stacked his cabinet with pro-Israel hardliners, raising questions about what diplomatic direction the U.S. president-elect will take on the Gaza conflict in particular.
Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court’s recent issuing of arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant has created divisions within the European Union, with states like Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland Lithuania and Slovenia, claiming they will enforce it, yet dominant powers like France, Germany and the United Kingdom, either backtrack on earlier statements or remain ambivalent.
The lack of a unified sense of moral outrage on the ongoing assault on Gaza followed by firm diplomatic actions from global powers and institutions like the United Nations, has further strengthened the Global South’s criticisms of Western double standards and the perception that the UN is becoming increasingly irrelevant in international peace and security. While the international human rights community has been vocal, consistent and principled, the ‘mediation and peacebuilding industry,’ with its numerous think tanks that have sprung up in the US and Europe in recent decades, has been timid at best.
And in Sudan, that has been described by one commentator as a ‘tragic afterthought,’ 10 million people are at risk of famine, and the two rival factions show little sign of coming to the negotiating table. With a plethora of regional and international actors, some who have been accused of backing one side or another, there is still no viable diplomatic process that could usher in an end to the conflict.
The world is on fire and is likely to remain aflame in 2025. While there has been little cause for optimism in recent months, now is the time to take stock of the moral and diplomatic failures of the past year and consider how diplomacy can be rebuilt from the rubble of these shocking wars. The challenges ahead are enormous, but we must remain committed to empowering local actors to resolving conflicts peacefully and inclusively.
In this edition of Diplomacy Now, we feature stories by Middle Eastern authors on the crisis in Lebanon and failed ceasefire, a Syrian-Spanish scholar on the prospects for peace and mediation in Syria and the set-backs in recent Sudan peace talks.
As with every edition the views expressed by these authors are not all necessarily our own. However, ICDI remains committed to the ethos and philosophy that open debate, dialogue, diplomacy, and mediation, rather than armed conflict and war, offer the way forward to resolving any conflict.
Thank you for reading Diplomacy Now and we welcome your feedback at diplomacynow@dialogueinitiatives.org.
Chair of ICDI
Spanish-Syrian researcher Dr Jusaima Moaid-azm Peregrina does a deep dive into the dramatic turn of events in Syria, offering insight into the group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, with links to Al Qaeda, and what Bashar al-Assad’s fall could mean for Syria.
“Assad’s collapse has left a fragmented Syria, and the immediate aftermath is fraught with uncertainty. While opposition groups celebrate their victory, the country faces the risk of descending into further chaos. HTS, the dominant force among the rebels, poses significant challenges due to its authoritarian governance and ideological rigidity. Other factions, including Turkey-backed Syrian National Army (SNA) groups, have differing objectives, raising concerns about infighting and the lack of a cohesive plan for governance,” Moaid-azm Peregrina writes, adding that the time for thoughtful diplomacy is now.
“Syria’s shifting power dynamics make the role of international diplomacy, particularly the UN peace process, more critical than ever. The fragmentation of opposition groups, the rise of HTS as a dominant force, and the sidelining of the Geneva-based opposition, primarily the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces, have created new challenges for determining legitimate representatives in peace negotiations. Meanwhile, regional actors continue to pursue divergent goals, and the risk of extremist governance looms large. Yet, this moment also offers a rare opportunity to reshape the peace process and address Syria’s deep-rooted grievances,” Moaid-azm Peregrina argues.
Journalist Sharif Abdel Kouddous explores why the Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire appears to have failed only a few days beyond its adoption, through speaking to leading analysts who have been monitoring the agreement.
“What may superficially appear to be a brazen disregard for the terms of the deal brokered by the United States and France is in fact a dramatic demonstration of the exact intent of the Biden administration’s effort to ensure Israel would continue to pound Lebanon under the auspices of “self defense,”” Abdel Kouddous writes.
“In the hours after the ceasefire went into effect, thousands of displaced Lebanese people who had fled to the north began attempting to return to home. But the Israeli military quickly issued a warning to residents not to return to their villages or to approach its forces and Israeli attacks on civilians quickly ensued. The next day, the Israeli military issued a nighttime curfew in south Lebanon. France has accused Israel of violating the ceasefire at least 52 times over the previous four days, though these were not reported through the monitoring mechanism, while a UNIFIL source told CNN that Israel had breached the agreement 100 times,” he writes.
Part of the problem was that the Biden administration provided Israel with a letter of guarantee “recognizing Israeli freedom of action on Lebanese soil,” and the fact that the U.S. won’t recognize Israel broke the ceasefire.
Veteran senior former State Department official Nabeel Khoury explores the history of conflict between Hezbollah and Israel and argues that the recent agreement takes diplomatic negotiations between the two countries back to where they started almost two decades ago, and that failure to address the Palestinian issue will only lead to perpetuation of the conflict.
“The United States envoy Amos Hochstein who facilitated the negotiations between Israel and Lebanon in what can best be described as shuttle diplomacy has in fact amended UNSCR 1701, by first asserting Israel’s right to act militarily in Lebanon to ensure Hezbollah is abiding by the agreement,” Khoury writes. “Lebanon has insisted on its own right to retaliate for any Israeli acts of aggression – the problem however is that Hezbollah cannot both disarm and retaliate for violations at the same time, and the Lebanese army in its current configuration is not in a condition to carry out the retaliation itself – because of a lack of equipment and training certainly, but more importantly because there is no national consensus in Lebanon to use its official army as a true border defense force.”
With Donald Trump entering the oval office will not bode well for peace in the Middle East, let alone between Israel and Lebanon.
Sudanese scholar Bakry Eljak Elmedni, who is part of the Coordination of Civil Democratic Forces (Taqaddam), an initiative focused on bringing civilians who back the rival Sudan Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces together, writes about the failed diplomatic attempts in October to end the conflict after 18-months of brutal fighting.
“The Geneva negotiations aspired to bring together representatives from prior unsuccessful initiatives to end the war in Sudan. Led by the United States, the initiative brought together the sub-regional Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD), the United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), and Sudan’s neighbors, and regional powers with influence over the parties. As the war drags on, rivalries among regional powers seeking to influence its outcome by supporting their preferred local ally, continue to pose difficulties for a diplomatic end to the conflict,” Elmedni argues.
“What might make the situation even more complex is that the incoming administration of Donald J. Trump in the United States is likely to withdraw from playing a leading role as a lead mediator and delegate the resolution of the conflict in Sudan to regional allies, mainly Saudi Arabia, UAE and to some extent Egypt, who have all been accused of backing their allies among the warring parties,” he writes.
Nelson Mandela
Receive our monthly edition focused on conflict resolution with articles from experts directly to your inbox.